Civil Procedure Commons^™

There But For The Grace Of God Go I: The Right Of Cross-Examination In Social Security Disability Hearings , Bradley S. Dixon

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Summary Of I. Cox Construction Co. V. Ch2 Investments, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 14, Katelyn M. Franklin

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered I. Cox Construction Company, LLC’s (Cox) appeal from a district court’s order releasing Cox’s mechanic’s lien. Cox challenged the district court’s finding that the lien was untimely as clearly erroneous, arguing (1) the court should not have considered the timeliness of the lien in light of parties’ failure to raise the issue in pleadings; and (2) the district court incorrectly relied on Vaughn Materials v. Meadowvale Homes to find the lien untimely.

Summary Of Peck V. Crouser, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 12, Ivy Hensel

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Whether the Court has jurisdiction to review an appeal of a post-judgment district court order that declared the appellant to be a vexatious litigant.

Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Permissive Counterclaims And Set Offs: A Misconception, Douglas D. Mcfarland

Mercer Law Review

In the years prior to 1990, courts extended federal jurisdiction over joined claims and parties in an orderly system. Pendent jurisdiction allowed a plaintiff to join a state law theory of recovery to a federal question theory in the complaint when both arose from a "common nucleus of operative fact."Ancillary jurisdiction allowed a defendant to join a state law claim to a federal claim in a civil action when both arose from the same "transaction or occurrence." Since a compulsory counterclaim arose from the same "transaction or occurrence" and a permissive counterclaim did not, courts had no difficulty in holding …

Class Actions, Heightened Commonality, And Declining Access To Justice, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

A prerequisite to being certified as a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is that there are "questions of law or fact common to the class. " Although this "commonality" requirement had heretofore been regarded as something that was easily satisfied, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes the Supreme Court gave the requirement new vitality by reading into it an obligation to identify among the class a common injury and common questions that are "central" to the dispute. Not only is such a reading of Rule 23 's commonality requirement unsupported by the text of …

The California Constitutional Right Of Privacy And Exclusion Of Evidence In Civil Proceedings, Jerry D. Mackey

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Allocation Of Responsibility After American Motorcycle Association V. Superior Court, Erwin E. Adler

Pepperdine Law Review

In its landmark case of Li v. Yellow Cab Co., the California Supreme Court judicially adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence in an action involving a plaintiff and a single defendant. The court in Li specifically avoided making any decision concerning the numerous issues which would be involved in a multi-party action: the relationship of multiple defendants with one another, the right of one defendant to join others for the purpose of sharing payment of the judgment, the respective responsibilities of such parties for the judgment (including those insolvent, partially solvent or possessing an immunity), and the procedure for the …

Flawed But Noble: Desegregation Litigation And Its Implications For The Modern Class Action, David Marcus

Florida Law Review

In this Article, I excavate the historical answer to the Rule 23 puzzle, one that suggests that the rule’s structure has little to do with theoretical distinctions between types of remedies. Far more important was the particular moment in American history during which the Federal Civil Rules Advisory Committee (the “1966 authors”) undertook the revision of Rule 23. To capture this moment, I reconstruct a neglected chapter in procedural history that stretches from 1938, when the first Rule 23 went into force, to the early 1960s, when the 1966 authors labored. I pay particular attention to Rule 23′s experience in …

The End Of An Era: The Supreme Court (Finally) Butts Out Of Punitive Damages For Good, Jim Gash

Florida Law Review

Part I of this Article chronicles and summarizes the development of the Supreme Court’s punitive damages jurisprudence. Over the past two decades, the Court has increasingly constitutionalized various aspects of punitive damages jurisprudence, using both procedural and substantive due process rationales. A set of three “guideposts” has emerged that courts are to use in determining whether a punitive damages award runs afoul of constitutional guarantees.

Part II outlines the multiple punishments problem that is currently facing courts throughout the country and provides a brief overview of the various failed attempts and current proposals to remedy this problem.

Part III provides …

Comment On The Proposed Amendment To Evidence Rule 801(D)(1)(B), Liesa L. Richter

Other Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher V. Superior Court: The Attorney's Right To Cross-Complain For Equitable Indemnification From An Opposing Attorney, Joseph E. Thomas

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

California Expands Tort Liability Under The Novel Market Share Theory: Sindell V. Abbott Laboratories, N. Denise Taylor

Pepperdine Law Review

The California Supreme Court, in the novel and unprecedented case of Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, eliminated the plaintiffs burden of identification of a negligent party, and thus the causation requirement, in a multiple party tort action. In the course of this decision, the court adopted the "market share" theory of liability which dictated in Sindell that nonidentifiable defendant-manufacturers of the generic drug DES would be liable for the damages in proportion to their share of business in the market. The author thoroughly examines various theories of recovery, such as "alternative liability," "concert of action" and "enterprise liability," which the court …

Molien V. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals: Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress, Michael P. Messina

Pepperdine Law Review

In Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the California Supreme Court recognized that the interest in freedom from negligent infliction of mental distress is a protectable interest, and that an accompanying physical injury need not exist in order to recover damages. The author presents a discussion of the history and policies behind the right to recover from negligently inflicted emotional distress. The author also discusses and analyzes the court's opinion in Molien and agrees with the court that the fears of opening the floodgate of litigation which before Molien precluded recovery, was arbitrary. Finally, the author concludes that the holding is …

World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation V. Woodson: Minimum Contacts In A Modern World, Craig H. Millet

Pepperdine Law Review

World Wide Volkswagen Corporation v. Woodson considers the problem of modifying in personam jurisdiction to comply with the changing nature of the American economy. Several lower courts had adjusted the "minimum contacts" test of International Shoe Co. v. Washington to allow for the differences in modern economic lifestyle, but a uniformity amongst the various approaches was lacking. Rather than synthesize a contemporary test for the assertion of in personam jurisdiction, the World- Wide Court chose to place state sovereignty above modern commercial realities and adhere to a more rigid application of the minimum contacts analysis. The author takes issue with …

The New Starker: A Nonsimultaneous Exchange Expands Section 1031/ Collateral Estoppel Clarification, Robert B. Paysinger

Pepperdine Law Review

The new Starker decision addresses the issue whether a nonsimultaneous exchange qualifies for section 1031 nonrecognition treatment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in addressing this issue, also had to determine the appropriateness of the collateral estoppel "separable facts" doctrine under the facts in the case. The author provides an in-depth examination of the court's clarification of collateral estoppel and expansion of section 1031. The author, in agreeing with-the decision, welcomes the added flexibility the case lends to the real estate finance field.

Has The Right To A Jury Trial As Guaranteed Under The Seventh Amendment Become Outdated In Complex Civil Litigation?, Georgiana G. Rodiger

Pepperdine Law Review

Recognizing the continually increasing burden placed on the jury in complex litigation cases, the author undertakes an extensive study of the origins of jury trials in the United States and England. Various arguments in favor of eliminating jury trials in complex litigation are discussed, along with a possible constitutional method of limiting the scope of the seventh amendment guarantee. The author also studies the case of Ross v. Bernhardt where the Supreme Court outlined a seldom used three- pronged test to determine whether or not a jury trial is constitutionally appropriate. The comment concludes that the factors in favor of …

Punitive Damages And The Drunken Driver, William C. Cooper

Pepperdine Law Review

A discussion of the history and theory of punitive damages which results in advocating their application in a drunk driving context after giving due consideration to the pros and cons of such a sanction. An analysis of case law will reveal the underlying rationale that has motivated certain jurisdictions in applying this severe penal approach in an attempt to deter and curtail the senseless destruction on our nation's highways as well as exploring the impetus behind those other jurisdictions that do not utilize the remedy of punitive damages. The culminating focus is on California's position in this regard. Finally, there …

Muko And Conex: The Third Circuit Responds To Connell , Robert A. King, Melvin L. Moser

Pepperdine Law Review

The authors discuss the application of federal antitrust laws to organized labor. The article, written for practitioners, defines the elements necessary to obtain a recovery in labor antitrust actions. The authors analyze the standard of review, burden of proof and the elements which the unions must show in order to be exempted from antitrust law. The focal point of the article is the comparison between the Supreme Court's most recent discussion of the labor exemption in Connell Construction Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union 100 and the Third Circuit's application of that exemption in Larry V. Muko v. Southwestern …

A Reappraisal Of General And Limited Jurisdiction In California , Thomas Kallay

Pepperdine Law Review

The ability of a California court to assert jurisdiction over business enterprises currently depends upon how the court characterizes the nature and extent of the business's activities within the state. If the in-state business activities of a particular concern are extensive, California courts will exercise all-encompassing general jurisdiction over the cause of action, but if the activities are insufficient to warrant the exercise of general jurisdiction, which has been invariably the case, the court will then turn to a consideration of limited jurisdiction, which jurisdiction depends upon the quality and nature of the business's activities in the forum in relation …

Summary Of Morrow V. Dist. Ct., 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 69, David H. Rigdon

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An original petition for a writ of mandamus from a district court order rejecting petitioner’s peremptory challenge of a judge in a divorce action.